I Just Can't Afford Private Rent, Says Council Tenant Former Minister On £66,000 Salary

[erranta]

<br /> <img src='http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<img src='http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />' /><br />

"Margaret Thatcher's government ended rent control in 1988"

(& secure tenancy to let private landlords screw tenants whilst they ceased building council housing)

88 is highly significant Masonic number (H - the rugby posts 'G'-ame)

Edited June 16, 2011 by erranta

[Goat]

"Margaret Thatcher's government ended rent control in 1988"

(& secure tenancy to let private landlords screw tenants whilst they ceased building council housing)

88 is highly significant Masonic number (H - the rugby posts 'G'-ame)

It just amuses me that people blame 'fatcher for all our ills when in 1997 Major handed over the country in a reasonable state and in 2010 Brown handed it over in a totally f***ed state.

The only common factor I can see across that period was Nu Labour.

[Chesnor]

Surely you can see the difference. On the one hand you have someone getting a helping hand on the carrers ladder becuase their father was a doctor, headmaster etc. On the other hand you have the housing officer trading with the education officer so that the latter gets a 5 bed house and the former a place for his daughter at the best school. Meanwhile PC Plod gets an extra bedroom becuase he let the HO's brother off from a drink drive charge.

There's simply no equivilence.

The former is wrong if it is nepotism.

The latter is wrong if it is cronyism.

The UK manages to pull off both in ever increasing amounts. You think they're completely different though. I don't.

Doubt you'll find much sympathy for that view on here. Even public workers would admit that there are huge number of lazy and unproductive in there, and are virtually impossible to get rid of (except by promoting them). Meanwhile the lazy and useless tend to get found out pretty quickly in the private sector and get gotten rid of asap.

To suggest that the cultures of the two sectors is the same means that either you've never worked in the private sector or you've never worked in the public sector.

I mentioned nothing about the culture, just the people. You seem to think there is some fundamental Morlock/Eloi thing going on. I've had enough experience with both sectors to realise that it the private sector isn't mostly populated by go-getting wealth creators and nor is the public sector mostly populated by feckless jobsworths hellbent on spunking taxpayers money. I just saw lots of people with all the usual good and bad bits people have. No Morlocks or Eloi though.

Things might have changed over the last 100 years.

Nope. We have another housing crisis. More market failure.

[Goat]

Crikey mate, that took some time to write; anyway:

The former is wrong if it is nepotism.

The latter is wrong if it is cronyism.

The UK manages to pull off both in ever increasing amounts. You think they're completely different though. I don't.

We have to pay for the latter through our taxes.

I mentioned nothing about the culture, just the people. You seem to think there is some fundamental Morlock/Eloi thing going on. I've had enough experience with both sectors to realise that it the private sector isn't mostly populated by go-getting wealth creators and nor is the public sector mostly populated by feckless jobsworths hellbent on spunking taxpayers money. I just saw lots of people with all the usual good and bad bits people have. No Morlocks or Eloi though.

The difference is that the private sector can get rid of the useless f***wits whereas the public sector tends to get rid of them by promoting them.

Of course the useless can hide in both sectors but the private sector employs people to find them.

Nope. We have another housing crisis. More market failure.

Turn your wireless on and listen, you'll find out that a few things have changed.

[Laughing Gnome]

What if we set rents on council housing to 30% of gross, pre-tax household income (be it from work or social assistance) to a cap of the fair market rental value of the property?

That would help councils earn more money from taxpayer owned assets under their control which they can then use to either reduce taxes or improve services.

I do not think that it makes sense for someone on 100k a year to pay the same rent as someone on 25k a year. People who can afford private rentals should either move or pay the owners of their accommodation (the taxpayers) a fair value for it.

By definition, taxpayers are landlords with a social responsibility through their ownership of council housing. In cases where they have no social responsibility to tenants (high income earners) they ought not to be forced to subsidise those tenants' standard of living.

So you want council tennants to SUBSIDISE services for people who can buy their own homes, nice.

Also you are neglecting the general benefit that a sufficiency of council housing would bring in reducing the cost of housing.

Everyone wins, except landlords and speculators.

[Chesnor]

Crikey mate, that took some time to write; anyway:

We have to pay for the latter through our taxes.

And the former. Any child that is given a leg up to the exclusion of a more gifted and capable child by virtue of their parentage is a drag on the entire economy.

The difference is that the private sector can get rid of the useless f***wits whereas the public sector tends to get rid of them by promoting them.

Of course the useless can hide in both sectors but the private sector employs people to find them.

My experience of the private sector generally shows this not to be as clear cut as you make out. It is hardly trivial under employment law to be hiring and firing with the ferocity you claim exists in the private sector. Then again I have mostly only worked in behemothic organisations, so I will concede my experience is a result of that.

Turn your wireless on and listen, you'll find out that a few things have changed.

Nope, it's still dysfunctional.

[Goat]

Nope. We have another housing crisis. More market failure.

The non-glib answer:

If we had a crisis in 1919 it was due to poverty plus world war 1.

The 2010 crisis is due to a 10 year speculative credit bubble matched with an open doors imigration policy and a benefits system that rewards dependancy.

The solution to the two problems are therefore different.

[Goat]

Any child that is given a leg up to the exclusion of a more gifted and capable child by virtue of their parentage is a drag on the entire economy.

Not sure about this idea of gifted children; I think the vast majority of difference in ability will be due to upbringing.

And unless you're suggesting that every child is taken into care at birth there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

It is hardly trivial under employment law to be hiring and firing with the ferocity you claim exists in the private sector. Then again I have mostly only worked in behemothic organisations, so I will concede my experience is a result of that.

There are ways and means and re-organisations are reasonably common.

Of course behemothic monopolistic private sector organisations will tend to behave more like public sector organisations because neither faces any real competition, but outside of a few natural monopolies there aren't that many of these in the private sector.

Bye, pub time

Edited June 16, 2011 by Goat

[Chesnor]

The non-glib answer:

If we had a crisis in 1919 it was due to poverty plus world war 1.

The 2010 crisis is due to a 10 year speculative credit bubble matched with an open doors imigration policy and a benefits system that rewards dependancy.

The solution to the two problems are therefore different.

Nope. The crisis of 1919 was that millions of soldiers were going to get very angry indeed about coming home after 4 years living in squalor to carry on doing the same.

Nope. The credit bubble was merely one phase of a housing crisis that began about 25 years ago. You are confusing cause and effect.

The symptoms are the same. A chronic shortage of decent/affordable housing. But you blame Germans, immigrants and benefit claimants? Are you serious?

[erranta]

<br />So, no-one has asked - but why does he need a 3 bedroom flat? Subsidised by the taxpayer.<br />

This was never a problem before in 80+ years of council housing.

Wunder why & is it cos you is jealous?

It is NOT "subsidised by the taxpayer" - cos generations of poor thru their rents have paid for it 20 times over!

Edited June 16, 2011 by erranta

[erranta]

<br />It just amuses me that people blame 'fatcher for all our ills when in 1997 Major handed over the country in a reasonable state and in 2010 Brown handed it over in a totally f***ed state.<br /><br />The only common factor I can see across that period was Nu Labour.<br />

Thatcher started spunking the oil money on her Faux War with her CIA skooled despot.

After she was "Forcibly removed from Office"

Major was left with oil money (none reinvested for long term projects) & proceeds of flogging off multi-Billion pound Public Utilities which also started with Thatchers Govt! He did feck all and bathed in the limelight.

Oh and he introduced the 'scam' of PFi - without consulting the Public on the matter!

Sleaze and cronyism for the contracts which the taxpayer end up paying 5-10 times more for over the term - matched the sleaze of his cabinet ministers whilst he polished off the 'odd Curry'

Edited June 16, 2011 by erranta

[daddybear]

This was never a problem before in 80+ years of council housing.

Wunder why & is it cos you is jealous?

It is NOT "subsidised by the taxpayer" - cos generations of poor thru their rents have paid for it 20 times over!

This is why we should build a lot more state social housing. Logic dictates that if the state builds and owns social housing, over time that housing will be paid for and at some point that housing will cease to cost anything apart from management and upkeep. If a sensible regime could be sorted so that a lease was only 5 years max and was based on low earnings (decided through tax data) that would really work. Borough councils should be visiting once per year to check that the low paid lessor is actually in residence.

[Habeas Domus]

A more efficient use of resources would be for the london councils to let all the houses at the market rent and use the proceeds to buy or rent property for people a couple of hours outside london.

The rental income from one house at £1000 per week will pay for about 8 houses further out, hell at that rate they could let the tenents who relocate stay for free, and they would still have an extra 7 houses suddenly available.

The reason this will never happen is that its "outside our area" so therefore "not our remit"

Local councils are still living in the 1800's where people travel by stagecoach and the thought of moving more than a few miles is just unthinkable.

[dohrayme]

This was never a problem before in 80+ years of council housing.

Wunder why & is it cos you is jealous?

It is NOT "subsidised by the taxpayer" - cos generations of poor thru their rents have paid for it 20 times over!

Not at all, I just wondered why a 70 year needs a 3 bedroom council flat, subsidised by the taxpayer, when they earn and have been earning well over 100k - are you saying there is no-one more deserving of a 3 bedroom flat?

[LuckyOne]

So you want council tennants to SUBSIDISE services for people who can buy their own homes, nice.

Also you are neglecting the general benefit that a sufficiency of council housing would bring in reducing the cost of housing.

Everyone wins, except landlords and speculators.

I am simply applying the fundamental principle of socialism to social housing :

- To each according to their need for housing

- From each according to their ability to pay for housing

If we had a coherent set of criteria to define need (space based on household size, a reasonable definition of the "local area" etc) and ability to pay, all of the inconsistencies and cronyism in the current system would fall away pretty quickly.

[LuckyOne]

A more efficient use of resources would be for the london councils to let all the houses at the market rent and use the proceeds to buy or rent property for people a couple of hours outside london.

The rental income from one house at £1000 per week will pay for about 8 houses further out, hell at that rate they could let the tenents who relocate stay for free, and they would still have an extra 7 houses suddenly available.

The reason this will never happen is that its "outside our area" so therefore "not our remit"

Local councils are still living in the 1800's where people travel by stagecoach and the thought of moving more than a few miles is just unthinkable.

I have thought about that too. The value of council housing in some very expensive parts of London is massive.

Individually, a lot of Brits are selling up in London and moving out to lock in massive gains.

It ought to be possible to do the same thing at a s societal level. Selling one block of council housing in St John's Wood would pay for a large multiple of homes in say Swindon.

[iamnumerate]

A more efficient use of resources would be for the london councils to let all the houses at the market rent and use the proceeds to buy or rent property for people a couple of hours outside london.

The rental income from one house at £1000 per week will pay for about 8 houses further out, hell at that rate they could let the tenents who relocate stay for free, and they would still have an extra 7 houses suddenly available.

The reason this will never happen is that its "outside our area" so therefore "not our remit"

Local councils are still living in the 1800's where people travel by stagecoach and the thought of moving more than a few miles is just unthinkable.

Good idea. Although I am not sure about free rent for anyone.

[thecrashingisles]

Good idea. Although I am not sure about free rent for anyone.

Although ironically it would be less of a subsidy than they are receiving now.

[porca misèria]

One of the reasons I wouldn't even remotely consider looking for a job in London. How many people living in London and complaining about the prices even considered saying "sod this" and looking elsewhere?

Many.

I got out in 1985, and was suddenly able to afford a tolerably decent house-share. A place that didn't look and smell like a slum, and that had little luxuries like hot water on tap.

[bomberbrown]

I started a similar thread the other week about this and Bob Crow and Frank Dobson.

One of the comments on that thread was when I had one of those changing my opinion moments. I too was outraged that these high earners are enjoying a nice council house when they earn quite a lot of money, but then one poster rightly pointed out that either of these people could actually BUY their council house right now and at probably quite considerable discount, but neither have have they. And if they did, where would that leave us? One LESS council house on the books!

It wasn't that long ago when the Tories were in opposition and spouting stupid proposals to extend the Right To Buy to Housing Association tenants (of which I am fortunate enough to be in), and if that was to come into force I WOULDN'T BUY MY FLAT because of my strong beliefs about getting more council housing out there!! (see my sig of over 4 years)

It will be interesting to see if both these people still rent their council house till they pop their clogs, rather than buying it for financial gain.

Just my tuppence worth.

[leicestersq]

I started a similar thread the other week about this and Bob Crow and Frank Dobson.

One of the comments on that thread was when I had one of those changing my opinion moments. I too was outraged that these high earners are enjoying a nice council house when they earn quite a lot of money, but then one poster rightly pointed out that either of these people could actually BUY their council house right now and at probably quite considerable discount, but neither have have they. And if they did, where would that leave us? One LESS council house on the books!

It wasn't that long ago when the Tories were in opposition and spouting stupid proposals to extend the Right To Buy to Housing Association tenants (of which I am fortunate enough to be in), and if that was to come into force I WOULDN'T BUY MY FLAT because of my strong beliefs about getting more council housing out there!! (see my sig of over 4 years)

It will be interesting to see if both these people still rent their council house till they pop their clogs, rather than buying it for financial gain.

Just my tuppence worth.

BB,

As you know I disagree with council housing because its allocation is in no way matched to any sensible critieria, be it need or just having deserved it because you have worked hard.

However, the right to buy at a discount is just insanely criminal. It gives anyone who has a council house a massive bung at the taxpayers expense. There are cases of serial council house buyers who live off this.

Just because these people havent exercised this right to 'fleece the taxpayer', doesnt mean that they arent fleecing the taxpayer at the moment, albeit not as much and in a slightly different way.

[leicestersq]

This is why we should build a lot more state social housing. Logic dictates that if the state builds and owns social housing, over time that housing will be paid for and at some point that housing will cease to cost anything apart from management and upkeep. If a sensible regime could be sorted so that a lease was only 5 years max and was based on low earnings (decided through tax data) that would really work. Borough councils should be visiting once per year to check that the low paid lessor is actually in residence.

One of the misconceptions that those who dont understand why council houses are subsidised, is the risk associated with building them.

An individual in a market takes a risk when making an investment, and could lose their money. And you have to discount future profits to work out if the risk was worthwhile. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesnt.

When the taxpayer took the risk building those council houses, the risk paid off, and the value of them has soared above their net present value. However, instead of the profit from the risk being returned in the form of lower taxation on the taxpayer, it has been given as lower rents to those lucky enough to receive council accommodation. It is important though, in a market, that those who take risks, and get it right, profit from it. This is because there are situations where you take a risk and lose badly.

It is perfectly possible for the councils to build homes, and find that due to say mass emigration or a terrible pandemic, that the value of those houses fall, and there is a huge loss to be taken. In that instance, the loss would fall squarely upon the taxpayers shoulders to bear.

It is just like the banks, they gamble, and take profits as bonuses when they win (or defraud), and take no losses when the lose. In the case of council housing, we have seen the situation of the taxpayers taking the risk, but seeing no gains when they have won, that has gone to the renters. However renters will see no equivalent loss if state funded housing takes a bath.

This is clearly wrong. The taxpayer should be the one rewarded for a gain made as a result of their investment, not those who are lucky enough to receive a council house for which they are charged below market rent and have a right to buy at a price that guarantees themselves a profit.

And the duplication of benefits with housing benefit means that the whole council house system surplus to requirements with regards to housing people. All it does is give certain people free money at the expense of others, when HB already provides for housing need. How can anyone defend this?

[bomberbrown]

<br />BB,<br /><br />As you know I disagree with council housing because its allocation is in no way matched to any sensible critieria, be it need or just having deserved it because you have worked hard.<br /><br />However, the right to buy at a discount is just insanely criminal. It gives anyone who has a council house a massive bung at the taxpayers expense. There are cases of serial council house buyers who live off this.<br /><br />Just because these people havent exercised this right to 'fleece the taxpayer', doesnt mean that they arent fleecing the taxpayer at the moment, albeit not as much and in a slightly different way.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Hey, there is some middle ground between us at the moment as I too feel the current allocation criteria is a joke, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. I propose in no particular order:

Revert the allocation criteria back to length of time on list, not those considered more needy

Build more council houses FFS!!

Remove the RTB, like yesterday!

UK born residents take precedence over immigrants to the UK

Long term unemployed housed in less populated areas i.e, out of London, etc

[leicestersq]

<br /><br /><br />

Hey, there is some middle ground between us at the moment as I too feel the current allocation criteria is a joke, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. I propose in no particular order:

Revert the allocation criteria back to length of time on list, not those considered more needy

Build more council houses FFS!!

Remove the RTB, like yesterday!

UK born residents take precedence over immigrants to the UK

Long term unemployed housed in less populated areas i.e, out of London, etc

Why council housing though BB? Why not private accommodation? After all, most are housed in private accommodation now I guess? And after all, HB is limited according to your means. If you suddenly win the Pools, no more HB, which is how it should be. With council housing you can sub-let it out if you are willing to take the risk. Without council housing, Frank Dobson would have to pay full whack, as he should, as would that union bloke.

Why is there this magic thing about council homes? Is it just because rents are lower?

I personally think that council housing once worked, built after the war, when there was more of a community spirit, of not taking what you didnt need from others. And I bet that rents werent totally out of whack with market rates either, like they are now in many places. Now they have become a means of creating massive unfairness. They should either be all sold off, or at least have market rents charged for them. This wont affect HB claimants of course, as they just get more HB, but it would mean that those who can afford it, like Frank Dobson, get to make a proper contribution, which is how it should be.

Cant agree more about the right to buy though. Shocking Pork Barrel politics.

[Chesnor]

It is perfectly possible for the councils to build homes, and find that due to say mass emigration or a terrible pandemic, that the value of those houses fall, and there is a huge loss to be taken. In that instance, the loss would fall squarely upon the taxpayers shoulders to bear.

If either of those doomsday scenarios happen I should imagine it would only be the most pointy-headed opponents of social housing would actually bang on about the terrible loss to the taxpayer because of the fall in value of a load of council houses, rather than, you know, the fact that shedloads of people have felt compelled to leave the UK or have died.